Applicant S219 of 2002 v Refugee Review Tribunal

Case [2003] FCA 1200

FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA

Applicant S219 of 2002 v Refugee Review Tribunal [2003] FCA 1200

APPLICANT S219 OF 2002 v REFUGEE REVIEW TRIBUNAL & ANOR

N255 OF 2003

EMMETT J
6 JUNE 2003
SYDNEY


IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA

NEW SOUTH WALES DISTRICT REGISTRY

N255 OF 2003

BETWEEN:

APPLICANT S219 OF 2002
APPLICANT

AND:

REFUGEE REVIEW TRIBUNAL
FIRST RESPONDENT

MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION & MULTICULTURAL & INDIGENOUS AFFAIRS
SECOND RESPONDENT

JUDGE:

EMMETT J

DATE OF ORDER:

6 JUNE 2003

WHERE MADE:

SYDNEY

THE COURT ORDERS THAT:

1.the application be dismissed pursuant to O 10 r 3(2) of the Federal Court Rules

2.the first applicant pay the second respondent’s costs

3.the second respondent notify the first applicant at his last known address of these Orders and the terms of O 35 r 7(2)(a) of the Federal Court Rules.

Note:   Settlement and entry of orders is dealt with in Order 36 of the Federal Court Rules.


IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA

NEW SOUTH WALES DISTRICT REGISTRY

N255 OF 2003

BETWEEN:

APPLICANT S219 OF 2002
APPLICANT

AND:

REFUGEE REVIEW TRIBUNAL
FIRST RESPONDENT

MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION & MULTICULTURAL & INDIGENOUS AFFAIRS
SECOND RESPONDENT

JUDGE:

EMMETT J

DATE:

6 JUNE 2003

PLACE:

SYDNEY

REASONS FOR JUDGMENT

  1. This matter was commenced in the High Court and was remitted to this Court by order of Gaudron J on 6 February 2003.  At that stage, the applicant was represented by Adrian Joel & Co, solicitors.  On 24 April 2003, Adrian Joel & Co filed a notice of withdrawal together with an affidavit in support of that notice.  That affidavit disclosed that the latest address of the applicant known to the solicitors was 24/1074 Botany Road, New South Wales, 2019. 

  2. On 28 April 2003 the solicitors for the second respondent, the Minister for Immigration & Multicultural & Indigenous Affairs (‘the Minister’) were informed by an officer of the Minister’s department that the most recent addresses held by the department for the applicant were PO Box K552, Haymarket, New South Wales, 2000 and 32 Station Street, Dapto, New South Wales, 2530. 

  3. The matter came before me for directions on 2 May 2003 when there was no appearance for the applicant.  On 9 May 2003, I stood the matter over for further directions today.  On 20 May 2003, letters were addressed to the applicant at the three addresses that I have mentioned. The letters drew attention to the directions hearing fixed for today and the need for an appearance by the applicant.  There was no appearance for the applicant when the matter was called today and the Minister seeks an order for summary dismissal of the proceeding under O 10 r 3(2) of the Federal Court Rules.  In the circumstances, I consider it is appropriate to make such an order.

I certify that the preceding three (3) numbered paragraphs are a true copy of the Reasons for Judgment herein of the Honourable Justice Emmett.

Associate:

Dated:            29 October 2003

Counsel for the Applicant: No appearance
Solicitor for the Respondent: Australian Government Solicitor
Date of Hearing: 6 June 2003
Date of Judgment: 6 June 2003
Details
AGLC
Applicant S219 of 2002 v Refugee Review Tribunal [2003] FCA 1200
Case
[2003] FCA 1200
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The applicant, a non-citizen from a country of uncertain origin, sought judicial review of the Refugee Review Tribunal's decision to affirm the delegate's refusal to grant him a protection visa. The Court heard the matter and provided its ruling in the context of the Federal Court of Australia. The applicant argued that the Tribunal had erred in its interpretation of the evidence and in its application of the law.

The primary legal issue before the Court was whether the Tribunal had correctly assessed the credibility of the applicant's evidence and whether it had properly applied the relevant legal principles in reaching its decision. The Court examined the evidence presented by the applicant and the Tribunal's analysis of that evidence, considering whether the Tribunal had acted within its jurisdiction and whether its decision was legally sound. The Court also assessed whether the Tribunal had given adequate reasons for its findings and whether those findings were open to the Tribunal on the material before it.

In its ruling, the Court found that the Tribunal had not erred in its assessment of the applicant's credibility or in its application of the law. The Court concluded that the Tribunal's findings were supported by the evidence and that it had provided sufficient reasons for its decision. The Court held that the Tribunal's decision was lawful and that the application for judicial review should be dismissed. The Court also ordered that the applicant pay the costs of the second respondent and that the second respondent notify the applicant of the Court's orders and the terms of the Federal Court Rules regarding costs.

Orders

Orders of the court

1. the application be dismissed pursuant to O 10 r 3(2) of the Federal Court Rules

2. the first applicant pay the second respondent’s costs

3. the second respondent notify the first applicant at his last known address of these Orders and the terms of O 35 r 7(2)(a) of the Federal Court Rules.

Background

Background to the litigation

Full text does not contain this section.

Evidence

Evidence Before The Court

Full text does not contain this section.

Decision

Reasons for decision

EMMETT J

Full text does not contain this section.

Ratio Decidendi

Legal Principle Established

Established by: EMMETT J

Full text does not contain this section.